> From this we can conclude that humans do not need any nice things like programming languages, assemblers or compilers to program effectively.
But maybe not efficiently. I realize that was tongue and cheek, but since this sometimes comes up in earnest (especially when it comes to dynamic vs. static type systems), it's worth noting that we knew from the very beginning that we can effectively program in what we'd now call adverse conditions: Not only were some earlier computers programmed directly in binary code (and Woz famously still programmed a 6502 by entering hex bytes into a monitor), before that we programmed by plugging in cords into panels, and in some sense still do in logic circuit design.
However, we sure became much more efficient in programming not only because higher level abstractions allow us to do things quicker, but because in addition of static type systems, we either catch really hard to debug issues much earlier, or won't make a lot of mistakes in the first place (you won't accidentally save a temporary into some register that you already used for something else even if it's "just C").
> especially when it comes to dynamic vs. static type systems
One nice thing about Typescript is that it gives us a mostly statically typed language and it has a control to compare against (JavaScript). That allows programmers to learn the strengths and weaknesses of both approaches. Previously most comparisons were apples versus oranges.
I'm guessing Python's Type hints (or Cython) also give a taste of the positives and negatives of static typing.
I would also presume both Typescript and Cython miss out on some of the more extreme optimisation benefits of static typing?
What's that weird APL derivative called that quants love so much? Julia? Reminds me a little of that, in the syntax at least. A little like MUMPS, too, maybe, and probably closer to that level in terms of its abstractions.
Beh. The first person said Julia (wrong). Then the reply assumed that parent meant J, but did not correct parent about Julia, leaving the misconception in place. Which I clarified.
No, I think they tried to correct them about that by saying "J is also up there" (implying "in contrast to Julia"), but I agree that that wasn't very clear, and that your clarification, even if it was under a wrong assumption, did help a lot. I stumbled across this as well.
I first learned to use TECO back in 1981 at Rose-Hulman, it was the OLD editor back then, but I thought it was interesting. I've always had some nostalgia associated with it. So much so, that I wrote my own clone for MS-DOS in Turbo Pascal back in 1989.... which is now usable in Windows 10, thanks to Free Pascal.[1]
I'm not sure if I've got things quite compatible enough to run all of those macros. I could run them in my Virtual VAX/VMS system, and see how they do on TECO32 there.
http://pdp-10.trailing-edge.com/mit_emacs_170_teco_1220/01/e...
From this we can conclude that humans do not need any nice things like programming languages, assemblers or compilers to program effectively.